Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 291

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Calculation of effective dose

Open access
McCollough, Cynthia H., Schueler, Beth A.·2000·Medical Physics

Abstract

The concept of “effective dose” was introduced in 1975 to provide a mechanism for assessing the radiation detriment from partial body irradiations in terms of data derived from whole body irradiations. The effective dose is the mean absorbed dose from a uniform whole‐body irradiation that results in the same total radiation detriment as from the nonuniform, partial‐body irradiation in question. The effective dose is calculated as the weighted average of the mean absorbed dose to the various body organs and tissues, where the weighting factor is the radiation detriment for a given organ (from a whole‐body irradiation) as a fraction of the total radiation detriment. In this review, effective dose equivalent and effective dose, as established by the International Commission on Radiological Protection in 1977 and 1990, respectively, are defined and various methods of calculating these quantities are presented for radionuclides, radiography, fluoroscopy, computed tomography and mammography. In order to calculate either quantity, it is first necessary to estimate the radiation dose to individual organs. One common method of determining organ doses is through Monte Carlo simulations of photon interactions within a simplified mathematical model of the human body. Several groups have performed these calculations and published their results in the form of data tables of organ dose per unit activity or exposure. These data tables are specified according to particular examination parameters, such as radiopharmaceutical, x‐ray projection, x‐ray beam energy spectra or patient size. Sources of these organ dose conversion coefficients are presented and differences between them are examined. The estimates of effective dose equivalent or effective dose calculated using these data, although not intended to describe the dose to an individual, can be used as a relative measure of stochastic radiation detriment. The calculated values, in units of sievert (or rem), indicate the amount of whole‐body irradiation that would yield the equivalent radiation detriment as the exam in question. In this manner, the detriment associated with partial or organ‐specific irradiations, as are common in diagnostic radiology, can be assessed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1118/1.598948

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
McCollough, C. H., & Schueler, B. A.
Venue
Medical Physics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-05
Volume
27
Issue
5
Pages
828-837
ISSN
  • 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
  • 2473-4209
OpenAlex
W2046592817
Cited by
291
References
0
FWCI
5.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.